On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 09:45:58PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Maximilian Gaß: > > > The second option I came up with was creating a libev-source package from the > > existing libev package and build packages including libev against this one. > > Bugs in libev would then only require a rebuild of the dependent packages > > instead of source package fixing. I think this solution is suboptimal but less > > invasive. > > This is comparable to C++ templates, so it's not *that* bad, it's just > rather unusual, and somewhat disappointing for something which is > quite likely to transparently pick up kernel API improvements (which > it has done with epoll, if the library is old enough). I have gained some more insight into the libev internals. According to a colleague of the library's developer, libev can be heavily customized when embedded, producing entirely different kinds of libraries. Due do this news and the massive inconvience of patching everything, I am currently favoring the libev-source solution.
Description: Digital signature